Authors, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. Please review the questions and files and let us know if/how we may update the document prior to publication.
The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-xmldiff1.html Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On May 15, 2025, at 1:28 PM, RFC Editor via auth48archive > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] To align with the Abstract/Introduction, we made > "Virtual Ethernet Segment" plural in the document title and the > short title (which appears in the running header of the PDF). > Please let us know of any changes. > > Additionally, please consider if "Provider Backbone Bridge EVPN" > should be included in the document title per the scope. And for > clarity, would it be correct for "Solutions", "Requirements", or > other to be included? > > Original: > EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment > > Current: > EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segments > > Perhaps: > EVPN and Provider Backbone Bridge EVPN Solutions for > Virtual Ethernet Segments > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may "on a per individual PW" be rephrased > as "on each PW"? Alternatively, if "individual" is necessary, then > perhaps "for each individual PW". > > Original: > For instance, if PW3 were terminated into a > third PE, e.g. PE3, instead of PE1, the vES would need to be defined > on a per individual PW on each PE. > > Perhaps: > For instance, if PW3 were terminated into a > third PE, e.g., PE3, instead of PE1, the vES would need to be defined > on each PW on each PE. > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Section 3.2: Why is this item numbered "R3a" instead of "R2a"? > In other words, The preceding section is R1a, R1b, etc., so > should this be "R2a" instead of "R3a"? > > If your answer is "R2a", then the subsequent requirements will be > updated as well (i.e. R4a, R4b, etc., will become R3a, R3b, etc.) > > Original: > (R3a) A PE device that supports the vES function MUST support local > switching among different vESes associated with the same service > instance on a single physical port. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3.4: FYI, we changed "Rbc" to"R5b". > Rationale: The preceding item is R5a, and the numbering in the > preceding section is R4a, R4b, R4c, etc. Please let us know if > you intended otherwise. > > Original: > (Rbc) Each vES MUST be identified by its own virtual ESI (vESI). > > Current: > (R5b) Each vES MUST be identified by its own virtual ESI (vESI). > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had trouble parsing this sentence and updated it for > clarity as shown below. Please let us know if it changes the > intended meaning. > > Original: > Since many EVCs (and their associated vESes) are aggregated via a > single physical port (e.g., ENNI), then the failure of that physical > port impacts many vESes and triggers equally many ES route > withdrawals. > > Perhaps: > Since many EVCs (and their associated vESes) are aggregated via a > single physical port (e.g., ENNI), when there is a failure of that > physical port, it impacts many vESes and equally triggers many ES route > withdrawals. > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] We note that RFC 7623 does not contain Section > 7.2.1.1. Was Section 6.2.1.1 ("PE B-MAC Address Assignment") > perhaps intended > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7623#section-6.2.1.1>? > > Original: > For PBB-EVPN solution, the main change is with respect to the B-MAC > address assignment which is performed similar to what is described in > section 7.2.1.1 of [RFC7623] with the following refinements: > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] Is a word missing after "Single-Active" in the following > sentence? Perhaps "scenario"? > > Original: > In case of a Single-Active, when a service moves from one PE in the > Redundancy Group to another PE because of DF re-election, the PE, > which ends up being the elected DF for the service, MUST trigger a > MAC address flush notification towards the associated vES if the > multi-homing device is a bridge or the multi-homing network is an > Ethernet bridged network. > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "instead of NULL value". Is the intended > meaning that an I-SID is carried in the Ethernet Tag ID field > instead of in the NULL value (Perhaps A) or that the route is > modified to carry an I-SID instead of a NULL value (Perhaps B)? > > Original: > [RFC9541] introduces B-MAC/I-SID route where existing PBB-EVPN B-MAC > route is modified to carry an I-SID in the "Ethernet Tag ID" field > instead of NULL value. > > Perhaps A: > [RFC9541] introduces a B-MAC/I-SID route where the existing PBB-EVPN B-MAC > route is modified to carry an I-SID in the "Ethernet Tag ID" field instead > of in the NULL value. > or > > Perhaps B: > [RFC9541] introduces a B-MAC/I-SID route where the existing PBB-EVPN B-MAC > route is modified to carry an I-SID, instead of a NULL value, in the > "Ethernet Tag ID" field. > --> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please clarify if "one for each VLAN" is the same as "one > for each I-SID"? And does "one" mean "one route"? > > Original: > However, if the failed EVC carries multiple VLANs each with its own > broadcast domain, then the affected PE needs to advertise multiple > B-MAC/I-SID routes - one for each VLAN (broadcast domain) - i.e., > one for each I-SID. > > Perhaps: > However, if the failed EVC carries multiple VLANs each with its own > broadcast domain, then the affected PE needs to advertise multiple > B-MAC/I-SID routes, i.e., one route for each VLAN (broadcast domain), > meaning one route for each I-SID. > --> > > > 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify what "(1)" is referring to in the > text below. Is "(1)" within the same section (Section 5.3) or a > different section? Or, perhaps "one (1)" was intended? > > Original: > 4. When this message is received, the remote PE MAY detect the > special vES mass-withdraw message by identifying the Grouping > Ethernet A-D per ES route. The remote PEs MAY then access the > list created in (1) of the vESes for the specified color, and > initiate locally MAC address invalidating procedures for each of > the vESes in the list. > --> > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] We found the following URL for [MEF63]: > https://www.mef.net/resources/mef-6-3-subscriber-ethernet-service-definitions/. > May we add this URL to the reference entry for easy access? > > Original: > [MEF63] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Subscriber Ethernet Services > Definitions", MEF Standard, MEF 6.3, November 2019. > > Perhaps: > [MEF63] Metro Ethernet Forum, "Subscriber Ethernet Services > Definitions", MEF Standard, MEF 6.3, November 2019, > <https://www.mef.net/resources/mef-6-3-subscriber- > ethernet-service-definitions>. > --> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how > they may be made consistent. > > Ethernet A-D per ES route (16) vs. > Ethernet A-D per ES (5) > [Note: should "route" be added to the 5 instances that > do not include it? > > MAC Mobility Extended Community vs. > MAC Mobility Extended community vs. > MAC mobility Extended community > [Note that the case used in RFCs 7432 and 7623 is > "MAC Mobility extended community".] > > b) For consistency, we updated the document to use the form on the > right. Please let us know of any objections. > > Core Network -> core network > DF Election -> DF election > Ethernet segment -> Ethernet Segment > Multi-Homed and Multi-homed -> multi-homed > Redundancy Group -> redundancy group > Service Provider -> service provider > Single-homed -> single-homed > > c) May "multi-homed" and "multi-homing" > be changed to "multihomed" and "multihoming" per common > use in the RFC series (and in particular, in RFCs 7432, > 7623, and 8584)? Your reply to this will be applied to the > other documents in this cluster (9785 and 9786). > --> > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations > > a) FYI: We have added expansions for the following abbreviations > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > - Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) > - Media Access Control (MAC) > > b) For consistency (within the RFC series and cluster 492), we updated > this document to use the forms on the right. Please let us know of > any objections. > > All-Active Redundancy Mode (AA) -> All-Active (AA) Redundancy Mode > > Broadcast, Unknown-unicast, Multicast (BUM) -> > Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) (per RFC 7432) > > External Network-to-Network Interface (ENNI) (Section 1.2) vs. > External Network-Network Interface (Section 2) > -> updated to the latter for consistency. > > Provider Backbone (PBB) -> Provider Backbone Bridge (PBB) (per RFC 7623) > > Single-Active Redundancy Mode (SA) -> Single-Active (SA) Redundancy Mode > > Virtual Pseudowire Service (VPWS) -> > Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) (per RFC 8214) > > c) Please let us know how we may expand the following term: > > - SH (in the title of Figure 1) > > d) As recommended in the Web Portion of the Style Guide > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev>, > once an abbreviation is introduced, the abbreviated form > should be used thereafter. Please consider if you would > like to apply this style for the following term: > > - Ethernet Segment (ES) -> use "ES" thereafter > --> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/kc/ar > > > On May 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/05/15 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9784-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9784 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9784 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-19) > > Title : EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segments > Author(s) : A. Sajassi, P. Brissette, R. Schell, J. Drake, J. Rabadan > WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > -- > auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
